Undecided Council Members Speak Up at Pricing Hearing
Janette Sadik-Khan and Rohit Aggarwala (left table) fielded questions this morning from City Council members, including Lew Fidler and Larry Seabrook.
At the first part of today’s congestion pricing hearings, Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan and Rohit Aggarwala, director of the Office for Long-Term Planning and Sustainability, fielded questions from the City Council’s nine-member State and Federal Legislation Committee. Several other Council members, including Speaker Christine Quinn, were also there to ask questions, and the chamber was packed with supporters of both pro- and anti-pricing groups.
The hearing followed word this morning that State Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno has introduced a congestion pricing bill in Albany — the same legislation that Governor Paterson announced on Friday, which is based on the recommendations of the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission. Quinn began the proceedings with a short but full-throated speech in support of pricing, saying, "The benefits so far outweigh any of the negatives, the concept of
inaction is simply, in my opinion, not an option. We have to seize this moment to
create a sustainable revenue source for mass transit." Then, after Sadik-Khan delivered her comments (which got big applause), the Council members started popping questions.
Two Council members who have not declared a position on pricing took part in the Q&A during the time I was there to observe. One was Larry Seabrook, a Bronx Democrat who has been identified as a possible swing vote on the committee. "How
are we going to say these projects won’t stay on the drawing board for
another 30 years?" he asked, referring to projects in the MTA capital plan targeted for the Bronx.
Sadik-Khan assured him about the lock box language in the current bill, adding, "I
don’t see any other way to fund the projects that your district so
desperately needs without the revenues from the congestion pricing program." Seabrook repeated his position that the lock box must be ironclad, but appeared satisfied that his concerns had been addressed, wrapping up by thanking the commissioner for considering his district.
The other undecided Council member was Tish James, who represents Fort Greene and Clinton Hill. James first asked if low-income New Yorkers, especially those who have to make trips to Manhattan hospitals, would receive any discount under the current plan. Aggarwala responded by pointing out that most New Yorkers rely on transit or for-hire vehicles to make hospital trips. The transit riders will receive better service, he said, and cab fare will be lower as a result of reduced travel times, yielding a de facto drop in the cost of hospital trips.
James also reiterated Anthony Weiner’s claim that pricing will give the federal government an excuse to reduce transit funding for New York, but seemed to back down from that position after Sadik-Khan and Aggarwala rebutted it. "What gave me consolation is that [the Bush] administration is a lame duck and their days are numbered," James said.
Stay tuned for more highlights, and don’t forget tonight’s hearing, when the council will receive public testimony.
Keep up the great coverage, streetsblog!
The Times’ City Room blog is reporting that the MTA has announced that it has “postponed” $30 million in subway and bus improvements that it had promised when the fare was increased. This is exactly what the polls are showing on congestion pricing, that the public doesn’t believe the promised improvements will happen. Sadik-Khan can give her laundry list of promises, but the MTA just isn’t credible.
You could also interpret it as the MTA pulling support for these improvements unless it is assured of CP revenues. I don’t remember improvements being promised with the fare increase as much as heading off a financial crisis (and even higher fares) down the road.
Or you could interpret this as it isn’t a case of enact CP to get things, it is a case of enact CP or lose things.
Unless we are going to lose them anyway, as a result of falling real estate transfer tax revenues and a soaring debt burden.
Or you can decide for yourself where the MTA sits on the spectrum that runs from stupid to evil.
If the MTA didn’t exist Shemp, you would have to invent it. You will always needs a pinata to swing at to give you what you want. Though Shemp is not too far from the City Council people and the Assembly people. Having sneered at the MTA and its service during every time the fare is increased it is hard to go ask the voters for more money. That doesn’t disprove the need for congestion pricing and more dedicated revenues, that proves it. If you want to change the MTA go ahead and change it, replace it if you want, let the community boars make all the decisions. But in the end it takes money to transport people. Where you get it from and where you spend it is what political-economy is all about. Maybe Mo, Larry and Curly could run it better, we’ll never know.
Can any of you pro-congestion pricing types work the math for me?
How is a proposed annual revenue of $300 million or so going to cover the long-term capital projects of the MTA? The MTA is facing funding shortfalls all over the place. Take for example, the 2nd Avenue subway, that’s going to be in the neighborhood of $2 billion dollars to complete. Even if you dedicate the cp revenue to that one project, it would take almost 7 years to cover the costs.
What about East Side access for the LIRR? What about Moynihan Station? What about subway line extensions? What about a third track for the LIRR?
What about closing the gaps on the LIRR?
By the way, has anyone re-crunched the numbers on how much revenue is expected now that the pricing zone only extends to 60th street?
Yes, something has to be done, but you’re all very eager to unleash a very nasty genie from its bottle. In London, the fee had to be nearly doubled in short order to see any appreciable drop in traffic.
How about we start with getting illegally parked cars off the street? How many lanes of traffic get choked because someone who thinks they are better than everyone else parks there car in the street?
I was in the City not too long ago and on a $20 cab ride from Penn Station to City Hall, I saw at least one car parked right in front of the “No Parking” sign. How much congestion does that cost?
By the same token, I took a rush-hour subway ride back up to Penn Station in a, literally, packed subway…nevermind the MTA ATM eating the 10 bucks I put in for a 2 dollar ride.
The system is filled to capacity and without substantial improvements before you try to get people off the streets, there’s going to be real problems.
There is simply no place to put the commuters right now, either on the streets or in the Mass Transit as is.
Maybe CP ultimately will be part of the solution to the region-wide transit problems, but it certainly isn’t THE solution.
CP is not the silver bullet proponents claim it to be.
Shirley – CP advocates support a major expansion of mass transit capacity, which you rightly point out is absolutely critical.
The question is how to pay for it. The $300 million in annual CP revenue would not be used to directly pay for projects. Rather, bonds would be taken out against CP revenue, and the bonds would be used to pay for projects.
The MTA’s five year capital plan budgets more than $4 billion in bonds paid for by CP revenue. That’s twice the budget for the 2nd Ave subway.
And that’s why CP is such an important funding source for transit expansion. Is it enough by itself? No. Is it nevertheless extremely significant? Absolutely, positively, definitively yes.
Works like this Shirley, if you can tolerate playing fast and loose with numbers. $300 Million represents yearly interest on bonds, say 5% for the sake of clarity. $300 Million is 5% of 6 Billion. Of course the calculation doesn’t work exactly like that but roughly thats what is going on. And as Momos correctly points out that doesn’t pay off the entire debt but it helps. Without it, forget about it, the debt service eats the operating budget and fares go up, then it swallows the capital budget and the mega projects disappear.
I don’t expect the charge to remain $8 forever and it shouldn’t. It should go up to the point where decongestion is achieved. There will be a price point at which demand elasticities kick in and marginal revenue will decrease. Somewhere between where one demand curve ends and the other begins is where the price will find a home.
As to the Gap on the LIRR, don’t hold your breath, thats the iron laws of geometry working their magic. The train is really a series of chords as turns and curves are accomplished. If the station happens to be at one of those locations and you get off in the center of the car (chord) watch your step. You can do it.
Niccolo, the question is not whether transit agencies need money, it’s the immediate one of why not wait two weeks and get past the pricing debate before making the city look like chumps for talking about service increases? Another well-timed wrench thrown into the works. Is it an accident the announcement was made by Delaverson?
$300 million is wrong. CP revenue is estimated closer to $500M.
Did anyone hear what Oliver Koppell said at the hearing? Lew Fiddler started to quote him but was cut off by the speaker.
Sorry, Shirley but that’s just totally incorrect. In London, about 30% of the traffic congestion flat out disappeared the day they flipped the switch and turned on congestion pricing. They raised the fee a couple of years later, primarily, because congestion levels were creeping back up.
I agree Shirley and I’ll do you one better. How about we get 115,000+ cars per day off the street. That ought to free up quite a bit of parking space. Double-parking is, in part, the result of too many cars in too small a space. Congestion pricing is a great tool for solving that problem.
First off, the system is not even close to capacity. Try riding at 10am. Second, yeah, exactly: CP quickly raises money for trains and buses and frees up street space so that buses actually function.
Seems like a mistake to tie support for CP to transit funding. Decreased congestion has plenty of other benefits, for drivers and non-drivers alike.
I attended the oversight hearing on the second round. Although the meeting was heavily weighted with Trans Alt advocates and the like, Councilman Fidler asked the same relevant, unanswered, questions to these pro-CP advocates with absolutely no substantive replies. Congestion Pricing and PlaNYC offers a bouquet of roses with the thorns still attached – NYC be warned – don’t grab it!
The toll bridge/tunnel crowd gets a “free” ride and everyone else pays with CP. Pure insanity! Who in his right mind would support such an inherently unfair and unequal bill?
London, as a model of CP, cannot be compared with NYC because London does not have 142,000 government sector vehicles floating around and parking for “free” so everyone else has to cruise endlessly. The elimination of illegal parking permit abuse, a prerequisite to any thought of congestion pricing, continues to be hidden. Does anyone really believe that 142,000 government sector vehicles with parking placards will really NOT be exempt from Congestion Pricing? The track record of the D.O.T., Bloomberg, and NYPD says “Yes” they will definitely be exempt.
The D.O.T. posted results of its 2008 Residential Parking Permit Study on its website, but it did NOT post results of the 2006 $570K Parking Study which was quietly released in the newspapers two Fridays ago – this is bogus and contrived politicking at its worse. We are not dealing with forthright people here! Congestion pricing will not win support on its merits because this ill-prepared heavy driving tax (during a recession, mind you) is premature in thought, it is blatantly unfair, and will fail in its execution – look at who’s in charge of enforcement – the NYPD and the D.O.T. Observe how the DOT has enforced illegal permit abuse during Bloomberg’s administration – in the last 7 years, NYC has lost $322-million in parking meter revenue alone due to the NYPD, D.O.T. and Bloomberg all turning a blind eye. And, how much is the federal carrot for CP? Oh yeah – $354-million.
Councilmembers who are sitting on the fence, are you listening?
Sadik-Khan full testimony at http://www.nyc.gov/dot
I believe that before the Home Rule request can move to the full Council, it must be approved by the committee that held the hearing; State & Federal Legislation Committee
Committee Members
Chairperson: Maria Baez
Joseph P. Addabbo, Jr.
Erik Martin Dilan
Lewis A. Fidler
Michael E. McMahon
Hiram Monserrate
Joel Rivera
http://council.nyc.gov/html/about/files/CouncilRules_013008.pdf (page 8)
7.70. Required Voting – a. All committee determinations, except as provided for in Rule 8.50 b., shall be on
roll call vote of the majority of the entire committee, including determination on matters requiring a greater
vote for final passage by the Council. All votes shall be cast in person and in open session, except that the
Committee on Standards and Ethics shall be authorized to record its vote while in executive session to
consider a disciplinary matter pursuant to the provisions of section 105 of the Public Officers Law. Except for
a voice vote as authorized by Rule 8.50 b., the result of each roll call vote, taken during any meeting of a
committee, the name of each member voting for and each member voting against the matter, and the names
of those members present but not voting shall be made available by the Legislative Document Unit for
inspection by the public at reasonable times. Members may submit to the committee a written explanation of
their absence from a committee meeting, which shall become part of the record of such meeting.
b.Resolutions will be acted upon by a roll call vote, unless, at the discretion the Chairperson of the
Committee to which it was assigned and with approval of the Speaker, such matter maybe acted upon
through a voice vote, once a quorum of the Committee Members are present. If approved by voice vote,
such vote will be recorded by the Legislative Document Unit as being, “adopted by the committee”.
Committee Members may have a “no vote” or “abstention” recorded by the Legislative Document Unit, by
specifically requesting such from the Chairperson, at the time of the voice vote.
“London, as a model of CP, cannot be compared with NYC because London does not have 142,000 government sector vehicles floating around and parking for ‘free’ so everyone else has to cruise endlessly.”
If Mr. Fidler wants to propose legislation eliminating the use of placards in Manhattan south of 60th Street, the most transit-connected part of the U.S., with the possible exception of judges and prosecutors facing security threats, I’m all for it. But in reality, the placard holders and CP opponents are the same people.
“The toll bridge/tunnel crowd gets a “free” ride and everyone else pays with CP. Pure insanity!”
Those paying tolls are already paying. What is insane is everyone who drives out of their way to avoid the tolls. Nothing would help outer-borough traffic in LIC and Downtown Brooklyn more than eliminating that incentive.
Pure spin! The free bridge/tunnel crowd gets a “free” ride and everyone else pays with the current system. Who in his right mind would not support making the system fair and equal?
Ah, so in a recession we’re supposed to continue to pay for the “free” bridges out of the general fund instead of making the rich people who use them pay for them?
Shirley Temple raised a valid issue that no pro-CPers touched and continually refuse to touch. That is, we are going to put more people on mass transit without any improvements made – the improvements will be made (hopefully, one never knows with all of the numbers coming out of MTA changing on a daily if not hourly basis) only after CP is up and running. And today, on this blog’s headlines, mass transit ridership is at its highest level in 50 years (in NY its at its highest in 35 years). And the proposal is to put more people on the overburdened and crowded to capacity system and then wait for a while until we collect revenues and then we will start to make improvements.
I think that you’ve all been outfoxed and you are now listening to your own press. Either that or you all live in Manhattan.
Ed, you’ve already made it clear how unfamiliar you are with pro-pricing arguments, so how would you know what we’ve refused to touch? In fact, it’s been touched plenty of times. Take a look at this picture:
http://flickr.com/photos/rethinkcollegepark/502514622/
The thing is that there aren’t really that many people who commute by car. It just seems like a lot, since they take up so much space.
Also, it’s simply not true that it would be “without any improvements made.” Subway and bus service has been continually improving in the outer boroughs for at least the past fifteen years, starting with Metrocard transfers. Congestion pricing opponents have called again and again for improvements – without specifying what would constitute adequate improvements, which conveniently allows them to raise this issue whenever they like.
And you wonder why we think you’re a troll? Ed, you know very well I live in Woodside. I’ve offered to meet you and talk about these issues, but I haven’t heard from you yet. Maybe you live in Manhattan?
So the CP money is supposed to allow the MTA to go even deeper into debt? Gee….that’s great.
Ed is a troll. And the disingenuous hackery of “ManhattanDowntowner” is precious.
The anti-CP shills are out in force. I wasn’t able to testify last night due to the massive delays and I have a CLE class tonight, so I’m out of luck.
Thanks Streetsblog for keeping us updated on the scene.
I live in Brooklyn . . . not Manhattan . . . and I support congestion pricing. I support a commuter tax. I support increasing the federal gas tax. We need ALL of those things to fund transit at the level required to expand and modernize the system and make every station accessible.
I tried to respond to the allegations made by Angus but was denied by the moderator even though I made no insults.
It is so easy to write someone is a “troll” yet be so self-righteously ignorant.
As many anti-CP shills that there are there are as many pro-CP shills. Many people on here are so ridiculously self-righteous, self-important, follow-the-trend without thinking beings, that I realize how few of you there really are. This is an echo chamber.
I also love how Angus responded to my post as though it was addressed to him. However, in this thread, prior to my post, Angus did not post at all. I was relaying my thoughts per this thread. Thus, Angus is trolling for me and not vice versa, mr. moderator. I was not seeking out him. He sought me out. Deal with him, not me. But I am sure that won’t happen on here because I raise real issues.
There are a few issues that the anti-CP posters need to put to rest:
1. That there is no guarantee that CP funds will be used by the MTA for mass transit. The language says so clearly with the lockbox; I feel you all just want to attack it ad nauseum to put doubt in people’s minds.
2. That increased ridership will overwhelm the system. One thing is certain, with out CP it is unlikely there will be a Second Avenue subway, 7 line extension or any other major capital improvements. And yes let’s ignore the $354 million which we will get upfront. Sure it may take a while to put hundreds of buses on the streets, but we’ll be much better off with them.
As to the person who said we could get $322 million from parking meters by stopping placard abuse, I laugh. Go ahead, try that and you’ll see none of it for a long time, if ever.
3. The unfairness of NJ drivers getting a toll credit. This has been addressed by Janette Sadik-Khan and Rohit Aggarwala; they will pay a share. In my mind the unfairness is that we don’t charge tolls on all the bridges in NYC.
During CP hours I think we might see an improvement in traffic at the East River bridges, but I think it will be MUCH worse after those hours end. Toll them already.
What am I missing?
The recent letter from 20 council members recognizes a basic inequity (one of many) in the congestion pricing plan: while NYC taxpayers who support the building and maintenance of our roads will pay this regressive tax, commuters who don’t even pay a commuter tax any more, but use all city services, will get a free ride by deducting bridge and tunnel tolls. Thus, suburbanites are actually ENCOURAGED to drive under this plan, since it costs them nothing and their rides will be faster and easier thanks to removing city residents from their own roads. This cannot be resolved by having the PA kick in some extra money: in order to serve as a deterrent (remember, the primary purpose was to alleviate congestion and pollution, not just raise money) the same $8 toll must apply to everyone entering the zone. New Yorkers, after all, cannot deduct bridge and tunnel tolls from NJ Turnpike tolls. (Are tolls on one road deducted from those on another anywhere?) Exactly who is supposed to be representing the already maximally taxed residents of this city, the only ones stuck with both DOT maintenance costs and the full freight of this tax, among our elected representatives?
The money from the CP tax is as likely to go to transit as the lottery money was to go to education (you may remember that we were in court for years to try to get equitable education funding for NYC). Cash is fungible–they can call it a “lock box,” but what insures against reducing appropriations for mass transit in proportion to the CP money available? Now that we are in hard financial times, and getting worse, you can be sure the state will grab the lion’s share. In fact, while the council hearing was under way, the unelected, unaccountable MTA reneged on promised improvements they used to push through a fare increase. So what might the REAL motive for this misbegotten plan be? Just look at gentrification to find a clue. Congestion pricing is just another way to make Manhattan into a safe, convenient playground for the rich, for whom $8 is trivial, but for whom being stuck in traffic is a drag.
The $354 million from the Bush administration is a Trojan horse. It turns out that Congressman Weiner was right: The Washington Post reported this week that the plan is designed to privatize the roads and severely reduce or eliminate support for public transit. How is it that none of the NY papers are investigating this sneak attack? This unfair tax must be defeated, and the motives of its proponents exposed.
The URL for the Washington post investigative report:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/16/AR2008031603085.html
It is indeed the experience with the tenuous lotto-education connection that is making it so difficult for people to believe that CP funds will be 100 percent set aside for MTA projects. Fool me once, shame on you blah blah blah and all that……
So will the new governor cease his self-flagellatory confessions of mulititudinous sins long enough to go balls to the wall to push this plan in the Assembly? We’ve yet to see. I think it unlikely. And would it matter?
And Lew from Brooklyn, if you’re listening, please make sure to point out more clearly how the $8 CP fee is just the start, and how CP supporters will very soon push to double or even triple that fee. That $8 figure is as disingenuous as George Bush’s “expiring” tax cuts. Also mention that once this money stream is in place there’s only a snowball’s chance in hell that it will ever be repealed. The idea of CP being a three-year pilot program is about as realistic as the idea that a political party that implements Sharia law will ever have to stand for re-election.
I’m glad you are entertained by my “hackery” – whatever that means.
” Ah, so in a recession we’re supposed to continue to pay for the “free” bridges out of the general fund instead of making the rich people who use them pay for them?”
This is getting strange – Common sense dictates that it is not rich people using the free bridges – logically, many more lower-middle class people and trucks use the free bridges, and rich people currently save time by paying tolls, like at the Midtown and Battery Tunnels.
“Pure spin! The free bridge/tunnel crowd gets a “free” ride and everyone else pays with the current system. Who in his right mind would not support making the system fair and equal?”
This “spin” merely points out how ill-prepared and flawed the congestion tax is in its current state.
The issues of elimination of parking permit abuse as a prerequisite to any thoughts of congestion taxing, and the comparison of London as a working model have not been adequately addressed.
“If Mr. Fidler wants to propose legislation eliminating the use of placards in Manhattan south of 60th Street, the most transit-connected part of the U.S., with the possible exception of judges and prosecutors facing security threats, I’m all for it. But in reality, the placard holders and CP opponents are the same people.”
Littlefield – This response is incredulous, especially “..the placard holders and CP opponents are the same people.”
I oppose CP strongly because it is not ready, and, simultaneously, I have been actively fighting placard holders for years now. Please change your koolaid.
As to promises made by the DOT – “The D.O.T. posted results of its 2008 Residential Parking Permit Study on its website, but it did NOT post results of the 2006 $570K Parking Study which was quietly released in the newspapers two Fridays ago – this is bogus and contrived politicking at its worse.”
I would not hold my breath regarding enforcement and follow through of D.O.T. promises regarding the toll bridges/tunnels. The track record of the DOT and NYPD on placard abuse speaks for itself. This same track record portends that 142,000 government sector vehicles WILL be exempt from CP. That’s why we need elimination of parking permit abuse first – before congestion taxing.
Are you getting all this, CP lobbyists?
Susan, three things: please do not copy and paste long stretches of your words to multiple threads. We only need to read them once. Second, recognize that most “NYC taxpayers” do not have cars and so will not pay this “regressive tax.” (As you must know by now, even with your lazy clipboard use, most NYC car owners also will not be regularly subject to the charge either.) Third, to invoke “gentrification”, which is neither here no there with congestion pricing, from your perch near Canal Street where you own and maintain a personal automobile, and a dog, makes me sick. That is all.
I’m delighted these fairly articulate if misguided and redundant opponents of congestion pricing are wasting there time preaching to the choir here. So much better a use of their time spent in the City Council chambers or in Albany. Certainly nothing that hasn’t been heard before.
oh my god pleaaaaaase stop repeating the same things that have already been addressed over and over. you anti-CP trolls are not making any friends, only solidifying supporters.
well, in that case, i guess, keep it up. 🙂
Spud: sharia? Let’s not go there.
I’m sorry that lottery funds were not used exactly as promised. Where did they go? Tax cuts? Government programs of dubious value? We certainly would not be in a better financial situation without a lottery, though I hate the thing, and am sorry if the schools were robbed of their share of the loot. Congestion pricing proponents are doing everything that is legally possible to secure this funding for transit. Tell us how you think transit funds should be raised, and secured, since this method is not acceptable to you. Wouldn’t any source of revenue be just as vulnerable? I’ll assume you agree that we need more transit funds, since we both ride the subway every day.
Niccolo, I think we’re all in the same boat no matter which side of CP we’re on. Nobody preaches to the choir more than a CP supporter on Streetsblog.
Doc, so you ARE that guy who blows the saxophone in people’s faces demanding money to stop tormenting them! I knew it! I haven’t seen you around in a while though. Did someone finally twist that thing around your neck?
How about this — let’s build one less Navy destroyer this year and use the money to finance the entire 2nd avenue subway line. Oh wait, is that aiming too high?
I forgot one thing, Doc:
Dog hater!
Spud, you just accused me of illegal subway begging and then proposed that we solve our city’s transit problems by asking the federal government for more money.
I do hate Susan’s dog, at this point.
Memo to people from the outer boroughs and the suburbs who resent Manhattan residents: Get over it.
Memo to Manhattan residents who drive a car: Move to the outer boroughs or the suburbs.
Memo to dog owners: Please curb your dogs.
ManhattanDowntowner wrote:
“This is getting strange – Common sense dictates that it is not rich people using the free bridges – logically, many more lower-middle class people and trucks use the free bridges, and rich people currently save time by paying tolls, like at the Midtown and Battery Tunnels.”
Lower-middle class people don’t drive to work, they take transit. If you can afford to buy a car, insure it, store it in NYC, fill it with gas, pay tolls, etc., you’re not lower-middle class.
I imagine that the irony was completely lost on all the news organizations that parked in the Centre Street-Park Row bike lane yesterday while covering the Council’s Congestion Pricing hearing.
I do feel on this blog that I am preaching to a group of choir boys (or maybe girls – although the females here seem a bit more open-minded), as I am probably twice your age and have lived in NYC much longer than you have been alive. I have watched the soul of NYC deteriorate because of the likes of Giuliani and Bloomberg, so I will always oppose the sellout of NY’s old neighborhoods and longtime small businesses to developers. Most lower and middle-class families can’t afford to live in NYC anymore, and with congestion pricing, and the “developer” mentality behind it, we’ll certainly lose even more. Enjoy your Starbucks, I’ll take mine at the local coffee shop while there still is one.
Downtowner,
If you’ve lived in NYC as long as you say you have then you probably well remember a time when our streets weren’t treated as public parking lots clogged with V8-powered SUV’s. You didn’t grow up with a quarter of the kids in your class suffering from asthma (like kids in Chinatown and N. Manhattan currently do). You may have even been able to play stickball or tag in the street in front of your house. For certain you didn’t grow up with threats like climate change, oil depletion and global resource wars looming over your future.
I’d like my young children to have the same opportunities that older New Yorkers like you had. Congestion pricing is an ideal way to move us in that direction and that’s got nothing to do with developers, gentrification or Starbucks. It’s about doing the right thing for our kids, our city and our futures.
Almost on a whim (TA’s Paul Steeley White invited me to testify) I went down to City Hall on Monday to testify. Now, I’ve done this dozens of times for other issues, so I pretty much know the drill (or thought so). I brought a pile of copies with me to hand to the press, to councilmembers as they drift by and anybody else that makes sense to. I had time to talk to Scott Stringer and Adolfo Carrion as well. I figured there would be a few hours wait while the DOT and City Councilmembers thrash things out. What I didn’t count on was nine hours of waiting after having signed up at 10:30am. I was absolutely stunned that not one person talked in their testimony about congestion being hazardous to cyclists and pedestrians. I’d just put in one paragraph on this expecting others would have spoken about it. When you’re the only one saying something (as Arlo Guthrie said in Alice’s Restaurant), they think you’re crazy and they don’t listen to you. Oh, and BTW, if councilmembers don’t hear from the public on things, they expect the public is happy. My own councilmember told me this that day talking about another local issue (a cafe wanting to have 151 diners on Dyckman St – he had heard from no one). Most of my testimony was about air quality benefits and urging a change in the paradigm of cars as kings of the road and everyone else playing in it. I hope it wasn’t a waste of my time to give the following testimony. I had to cut this short since the time alloted was 2.5 minutes.
Testimony of Marjorie J. Clarke, Ph.D.
City Council of New York Hearing on Congestion Pricing
http://www.MaggieClarkeEnvironmental.com
mclarke@hunter.cuny.edu
March 25, 2008
I am Marjorie J. Clarke, Ph.D. in earth and environmental sciences of Maggie Clarke Environmental. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on congestion pricing, which is one of the most important single actions that government can take to make streets safer for bicyclists and pedestrians. You know that. I could go on and on about the times I’d been leading bike rides for local bike clubs over the last 28 years when I was nearly sideswiped, cut off, or otherwise escaped with my life. Not to minimize the value of losing my own life or those of friends who did due to the pervasive climate of cars as the only legitimate users of the roads, I want to urge you to approve congestion pricing for other, even more compelling reasons.
I am speaking to you today with background as the environmental scientist for the City Sanitation department when they were planning to build as many as 11 solid waste incinerators, as author of numerous articles and co-author of the National Academy of Sciences’ report Health Effects of Waste Incineration, and adjunct professor at CUNY who has taught courses including those on environmental health.
You, as councilmembers, are probably aware that any time the government wants to build something like an incinerator, that comes with a source of emissions, thorough Environmental Impact Statements are required, not only to see how many emissions of many exotic types will be put into the environment, but also where the greatest zone of impact will be, what technologies can be used to minimize the impact, where the plant can be sited to minimize impact, and even is there a realistic option to fulfill the need for the facility without building it at all. Every molecule of carbon monoxide, sulfur and nitrogen oxides, and many more toxic, carcinogenic compounds including dioxins are studied. Unfortunately, a double standard exists for motor vehicles.
In stark contrast, whenever anybody wants to add another fleet of cars or truck to the road, or add vehicle miles traveled, nobody takes notice. The existing traffic load is taken for granted, as if the effects on human health and the environment are nominal. Nobody evaluates every molecule of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and the ozone that gets created, where it goes or is concentrated, much less the dioxins that are emitted from trucks and cars. Yes, studies have shown that dioxins are emitted in very small quantities from vehicles. If there were a small number of vehicles operating 24/7 on our roadways, this effect would be negligible, but because there are millions of vehicle sources in the area, and each one is nowhere near as well controlled as a multi-million dollar solid waste incinerator, for example, and there is the prevailing climate that cars have always been here and that health effects are negligible, the government hasn’t studied human health impacts of vehicles much. Now, academic research, including at Lehman College, have started to use Geographic Information Systems to correlate asthma and other respiratory health to sources of traffic. Others are starting to study the impacts of diesel particulates on human health. Intro 650, which the Council is considering now, if passed, will seriously harm this effort to study our air to locate and reduce routine and sudden sources of air pollution. The research at Lehman has shown correlations of health problems in people who live near truck routes. Trucks have long enjoyed much more lax regulation even than cars. The specter of climate change is another aspect of too many cars that I don’t have time to get into, but is just as valid a concern for the long-term.
Motor vehicles have enjoyed a free pass for too long. My grandfather told my mother once that the smoke coming from industrial facilities was a sign of progress, so be quiet! Congestion pricing is the first serious effort to really start changing the paradigm of cars as king of the roads. We shouldn’t be quiet about the health effects of this massive number of pollution sources or say it’s ok as a sign of progress. I know that some of you are withholding your support for congestion pricing in exchange for a promise that a particular transit need will be fulfilled, and I’m fully supportive of mass transit in all its forms, and trains to replace trucks on the road, as these will reduce emissions and improve our public health. But this opportunity for federal funding is our best chance to have the needed push to change the paradigm, once and for all, to make our streets safer for those engaging in greener transportation, and more healthy for our city’s residents to breathe. I urge you in the strongest possible terms, to vote in favor of congestion pricing and urge lawmakers in Albany to do the same.
To SHEILA
I have two kids who have gone through the public school system in NYC and I live in lower Manhattan. You have bought into the environmental spin (which seemed to dominate the last oversight hearing), and you don’t realize congestion pricing is a money scheme more than anything else. Of course I’m aware of the air quality improvements that are needed. I have worked actively for years to eliminate parking permit abuse in my neighborhood which causes loss of air quality, loss of business and loss of quality of life. Congestion taxing in downtown manhattan will only have deliterious effects, not only in people’s pockets, but especially because NJ Holland Tunnel vehicles (and other toll bridges/tunnel vehicles) will have ABSOLUTELY NO deterence due to Congestion taxing’s free pass.
“If you’ve lived in NYC as long as you say you have then you probably well remember a time when our streets weren’t treated as public parking lots…”
I can better remember when our streets were not clogged with 142,000 government sector vehicles with parking permits – this still exists now, and Congestion taxing will do nothing to improve these 142,000 air polluters. In fact, Bloomberg and the DOT’s dismal track record regarding parking permit abuse predicts that these same 142,000 government sector vehicles will be given a double free ride – this will only serve to encourage MORE driving into Manhattan.
Doing the right thing for our City means NOT supporting a driving tax bill which is ill-prepared, unbalanced and unfair.
Downtowner,
I haven’t bought in to any environmental “spin.” I’ve actually spent quite a bit of time in London both before congestion pricing and after. I’ve personally experienced how much nicer and healthier that city is with so many fewer cars on the street, buses that actually work and nicer public spaces and pedestrian streets downtown. That’s the main reason why I support congestion pricing. I’ve seen it work elsewhere.
As for the govt parking problem: Yes, sure, that’s important too. I’m glad that the city is finally working on that problem but eliminating parking abuse isn’t the solution by itself.
Sheila.
I would certainly agree that elimination of parking abuse isn’t the only solution to congestion. It is the sequence here that is all wrong. I have been emphasizing that parking permit abuse needs to be addressed FIRST, otherwise you will be stuck with congestion pricing + 142,000 government sector commuters with parking permits. You mention CP working in London again; but again, London is missing the extra 142,000 government sector parking permit holders that NYC has. Everyone knows, the ONLY reason the Mayor at this time has conceded to a measly %20 reduction of placards, and, a flaky and rushed residential parking permit study, was so that he could temper to the road toward pushing congestion pricing; this is glaringly obvious, given the chronology. CP will not work in NYC like London for reasons above.
You’re kidding yourself if you think there is an easy answer to placard abuse…it will take a very very long time.
You are talking about taking away rights that the police, firemen, politicians and judges have come to think are part of their job-given rights (they aren’t).
Look at the silly lawsuit by the obnoxious judges in Brooklyn who are defending their right to park illegally for security reasons. Hah!
Every cop, every politician will play a similar game and it will take forever to end placard abuse.
We need CP now, and if you don’t know the reasons for it you haven’t been paying attention.
FYI Dave
In your right mind, can you honestly say the CP bill is well-prepared, ready, fair, equitable?
Who’s kidding who, Dave? Community Boards 1, 2 and 3, representing all of Downtown Manhattan and literally hundreds of thousands of people – voted unanaminously, mind you – for posting of No Permit Parking signs. Where have you been? Sure, to a guy like you, this seems steeped in fantasy, but everyday I walk outside my door, and I do pay attention and see a 90% real, factual, countable, reduction in permit abuse because of these No Permit Parking signs. The 5th Pct has heroes and this is where true support is needed, not support for a wholly ill-prepared, unfair, biased, and unbalanced congestion tax. Real – not fantasy – Dec 2007 – at least six (6) days of NYPD towing NYPD on Mott Street and Chatham Square. I personally witnessed several of those days – NYPD towing NYPD. Got your attention yet?
Have you bothered to check the recent bogus Residential Parking Permit Study – on the DOT website? This is another carrot to rush/push CP. Downtown Brooklyn will be in shock and awe with permit parkers AND residential parkers if, sadly, CP is implemented. Downtown Bklyn, some of the worst parking placard abuse in the City.
With CP, the NJ $45-million gain (as per Sadik_Khan) will come from the lower income drivers, those who statistically don’t have EZ pass and have to pay cash – and, these drivers are also the ones who pay the most late fines and can least afford CP! Dave, really, I do believe you might try to call this a “fair and balanced” CP bill, in the same way Fox 5 does the news.
Let’s be clear here, it’s the ORDER that’s wrong. Elimination of parking permit abuse logically should come FIRST – I think you know why (let’s not talk about exemptions and Sadik-Khan’s noncommitment – i.e., “the slppery road” – this is a load of…). Congestion pricing is so ill-prepared and so far from being a real bill, for reasons like the ones above, it should not even be considered at this time.
My bad – I stand corrected. CB1 is currently working on a resolution requesting permanent No Permit Parking Signs, and so naturally CB1 has not voted on that yet, as I stated – However, CB1 had already passed a similar but much more limited resolution requesting a No Permit Area from the DOT last year. I am in touch with all three of these community boards, and would not want to misrepresent.
OK MD I will reform placard abuse first if you personally find the $354 million the city will lose from the Feds if we don’t pass CP. And trust me the Feds will sc**w the city anytime they can when it comes to funding so don’t throw me some line that we can get it later or from parking meters when we reform placards.
A limited assault on the placard-abusing hordes out there is one thing but doing it city-wide will FAIL.
I remember a few years back a diner-owner in the 20’s on Third who said that illegal parking by the cops cost him business. The precinct captain held a press conference calling him a cop-hater and he was boycotted and I think he had to close.
That’s the mentality of these self-righteous placard wielders and we have Kerik and the POS Giuliani to thank for making it worse.
So wake up to the coffee; even Bloomberg is afraid of a frontal assault on the cops, bureaucrats and others that make out city less livable.
Tow more things:
CP is a trial and subject to change. I personally think it is necessary but will need to be amended to have shoulder-time fees; I think a huge problem will be back-ups at 5:45pm for those waiting to avoid the fee.
Let’s all stop talking about these phantom poor drivers in Jersey or the city. Driving in NYC is not a right it is a privilege and if you can afford the car, the insurance and the gas you can afford the CP fee or take mass transit.
End of discussion.